Super Dave said:
D. Purchase music from the artist directly, and cut out the greedy, thieving, arrogant, and ultimately worthless labels.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple involved in Next Gen PC to HDTV Connectivity
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
D. Purchase music from the artist directly, and cut out the greedy, thieving, arrogant, and ultimately worthless labels.
Perhaps I'm getting old but I can remember when a friend would "borrow" an LP to play on his stereo..
I never heard the music business complaining about that.
Nowadays with this sort of model going on if I loaned my friend the LP there would be a black-suited dude with dark glasses standing outside just waiting to tell him he cant play it.
I never heard the music business complaining about that.
Nowadays with this sort of model going on if I loaned my friend the LP there would be a black-suited dude with dark glasses standing outside just waiting to tell him he cant play it.
cubist said:
I think that would be the most viable and fair method of ensuring that and artists media is respected. Some people think its ok to download/upload content because it sticks it to the media corps.
Peace said:
I just wonder when the day will come when each car will be equipped with a sensor that determines whether you have a passenger or not. If not, you can listen to your music, but if you do have a passenger, your music will not play.
hayesk said:
That may be true but the MPAA and RIAA seem to be more concerned about the most popular music being copied.And if the music is popular one can extrapolate from there that the artist is getting paid well.
Macrumors said:
Twice the capability of the largest displays today?! Finally! I've really been chafing under the low-res restrictions of dual 30" cinema displays. I really, really need more!
Seriously, is this really necessary? OK, I know, I know. There are those famous embarrassing quotes, like the one from IBM estimating the global market for computers at 4-5, and the one about how 640K is all the RAM anyone will ever need, etc. And whenever I get a new computer, the amount of hard drive space seems outlandish, but I always fill it up. But Moore's law doesn't really apply to pixels, does it?
I mean, you can only look at so much stuff at once. And, while no one who owns a 30" apple monitor actually complains about it, some admit to feeling a little uncomfortable about how much they need to crane their necks.
Sorry, but you're incorrect. The DMCA de facto outlaws fair-use for materials that are protected by a technological access control measure. While fair use is still a defense to an action of copyright infringement, it is not a defense to the anti-circumvention portions of the DMCA. I wrote a paper on this recently for my Multimedia Law course, which you can read here.ZorPrime said:It depends on how you (not you per se but the federal law defines "rip") define "rip" and what the "rip" would be used for...
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer or advocate of "piracy" and my comments do not constitute any legal advice or others point of view.
It's more about the relative low resolution of the displays for viewing things, i.e. how many pixels per inch they have. Imagine if the 30" Cinema display had twice its current resolution, but the interface objects stayed the same physical size? Now everything is incredibly sharp, just like looking at the printed page. Instead of being able to see individual pixels like you can now, you'd only see smooth text and objects. With resolution-independent interfaces that can be scaled up to accommodate the increase in pixel count, that's what we're looking at. Not to gain more desktop area, but to make that area more pleasant to look at.iSee said:Twice the capability of the largest displays today?! Finally! I've really been chafing under the low-res restrictions of dual 30" cinema displays. I really, really need more!
Seriously, is this really necessary? OK, I know, I know. There are those famous embarrassing quotes, like the one from IBM estimating the global market for computers at 4-5, and the one about how 640K is all the RAM anyone will ever need, etc. And whenever I get a new computer, the amount of hard drive space seems outlandish, but I always fill it up. But Moore's law doesn't really apply to pixels, does it?
I mean, you can only look at so much stuff at once. And, while no one who owns a 30" apple monitor actually complains about it, some admit to feeling a little uncomfortable about how much they need to crane their necks.
Some_Big_Spoon said:
I have no need for swampland.Thanks tho
I know several musicians.One's that folks here would know of and they are NOT low to middle class..
I don't deny there are musicians that are barely making it.I'm one.But the vast majority of "popular" bands/musicians are driving nice cars and live in nice houses.
<edit> I fully understand the concept and reasons for DRM.I am however completely against big corporations telling consumers what they can or can't listen to and/or watch </edit>
MacRumors said:
Way to push the technological boat out! A, whoa, doubling of capability to cater for the next 10 years. Man, these companies sure know how to design for the hi-tech future.
Professor Frink said:
Our saving grace will be the technology companies. If the media companies make the DRM too restrictive, no one will buy the devices to play it. The companies producing the players will fight for as much functionality as they can get in order to sell their hardware. The media companies will fight for the least amount of access they can get away with in order to milk us dry.
We've already seen this pattern with Apple and the RIAA. Apple knows that people won't buy iPods that have incredible restrictions on listening and copying music. If we don't buy the hardware, then the potential revenue for the media barons never appears. That's a lose-lose scenario.
Ironically, it'll be corporations fighting other corporations that saves our fair use rights.
We've already seen this pattern with Apple and the RIAA. Apple knows that people won't buy iPods that have incredible restrictions on listening and copying music. If we don't buy the hardware, then the potential revenue for the media barons never appears. That's a lose-lose scenario.
Ironically, it'll be corporations fighting other corporations that saves our fair use rights.
Excellent Points...
Good paper. As I stated, I'm no lawyer and I'm not going to debate the de facto laws (i'll loose. ), applied to fair-use, but even the DMCA has its limits and hasn't been constitutionally challenged yet. How does one define "circumventation"? Once can "circumvent" without touching DRM. The DMCA isn't uniformly applied, education and research being one, and companies, like Roxio, that make DVD backup software are still in business and aren't under injunction.
Cless said:
Good paper.
As I stated, I'm no lawyer and I'm not going to debate the de facto laws (i'll loose. ), applied to fair-use, but even the DMCA has its limits and hasn't been constitutionally challenged yet. How does one define "circumventation"? Once can "circumvent" without touching DRM. The DMCA isn't uniformly applied, education and research being one, and companies, like Roxio, that make DVD backup software are still in business and aren't under injunction.cubist said:
Agreed, this would be the best option for us. However, this really doesn't translate well to the movie industry. It's the studios that have the money to put the films out (produce, edit, advertise, sell to homes).
My stance on the whole DRM thing is that I want Fair DRM. I want DRM that is transparent to me all of the time, unless I try to do something illegal with it. FairPlay is a great example. The only time that I even realize it's there is playing it on a formerly unauthorized machine. Even then, iTunes kindly asks me to authorize the machine to play the songs, and then it's back to transparent.
Perhaps that's a possibility for future movies. The player (or computer) would be connected to the internet (via phone or cable or something). When you insert a HDCP movie, it asks you to "register" (or authorize) the movie to the machine and then it plays. You could limit the authorization of the movie to 5-10 players, but allow for a deauthorize (or have a one-time, temporary authorization). The list of authorized HDCP movies could be kept in the players firmware or something. That way you can play it on the machines you own (allowing for 2 dvd players, and your personal machine plus taking it to a friends house), but you could take it over to your friends house and play it on his home theater (by using an authorization or a one-time play). Something like that seems reasonable for playing (fair use copying would have to be something else, maybe include a ripper on the disc that would add the same 5-10 authorizations/deauthorization to the movie).
Edit: I just looked and fortunately for me, my HDTV has the HDCP chip built in.
iTunes' FairPlay DRM is pretty straightforward though. It's only going to be there for you if you buy a song from iTMS. It doesn't try and lock down all the music you import into iTunes or check to see whether you bought your CDs legally, **** it doesn't even regularly check the iTMS server to see if your songs are still activated (once when activating the song and that's pretty much it for a good long time).
If a movie is going to have DRM on IT to make sure IT doesn't get copied, that's fine, but why should it go any further? Logically all they need to know is that the movie won't be copied by an average joe, and that's all there is to it.
Borrowing is part of the terms of using physical media, something that I know they'd love to abuse -- shoot there's even a problem with that in iTunes being that you can't "give" someone your songs.
With my reasoning though, HDCP doesn't sound all that bad -- but it is. It presents an inconvenience, as traditionally only the device that reads the copyrighted material has any obligation to utilize the protection. [DVD players need macrovision support to play certain DVDs?].
Of course, I'm sure having a compliant HDCP display also means having to pay somebody money to have that compliance and be able to use that standard. Not to mention HDCP requires video cards that support it, and motherboard, and so on and so fourth. Suddenly it begins to stink.
Dual Link DVI is not at the end of its capabilities, shoot right now it's finally being used to its full potential with displays like the 30" cinema display. Have you guys ever taken a good look at various DVI connectors?
Let's put it this way: Your average LCD is "single link" DVI, that means not all of the pins on your DVI port are used [which were all used by USB and various other things with ADC]. With Dual Link, those extra pins are used for video signal [which is why ADC was ditched].
Need more pins? Fine make a new interface. I don't see a reason why adding crap like this is necessary.
If a movie is going to have DRM on IT to make sure IT doesn't get copied, that's fine, but why should it go any further? Logically all they need to know is that the movie won't be copied by an average joe, and that's all there is to it.
Borrowing is part of the terms of using physical media, something that I know they'd love to abuse -- shoot there's even a problem with that in iTunes being that you can't "give" someone your songs.
With my reasoning though, HDCP doesn't sound all that bad -- but it is. It presents an inconvenience, as traditionally only the device that reads the copyrighted material has any obligation to utilize the protection. [DVD players need macrovision support to play certain DVDs?].
Of course, I'm sure having a compliant HDCP display also means having to pay somebody money to have that compliance and be able to use that standard. Not to mention HDCP requires video cards that support it, and motherboard, and so on and so fourth. Suddenly it begins to stink.
Dual Link DVI is not at the end of its capabilities, shoot right now it's finally being used to its full potential with displays like the 30" cinema display. Have you guys ever taken a good look at various DVI connectors?
Let's put it this way: Your average LCD is "single link" DVI, that means not all of the pins on your DVI port are used [which were all used by USB and various other things with ADC]. With Dual Link, those extra pins are used for video signal [which is why ADC was ditched].
Need more pins? Fine make a new interface. I don't see a reason why adding crap like this is necessary.
eXan said:60 inch Apple Cinema Display! 5120x3200 pixels!!!
Umm, that would be 4x the bandwidth. You have to wait another 10 years for that.
Right now, you're looking at a 43" display. In just ten years.
gnasher729 said:
Which, of course, is the major logic flaw in this whole line of thinking. The "real" pirates will be running bit-for-bit duplication facilities and shipping silkscreened disks that look identical to the originals to every street corner in Taipei the day the Blu Ray disk ships. The "real" pirates will be ripping the movie from pre-release screenings before the movie even hits theaters. All this rigamarole does a whole lot to thwart Joe Sixpack from hooking up a "spoofing device", decrypting the contents of his video library, and offering that on the Internet to all his "friends", at a severe cost to consumers (at least, pretty much everyone who has bought an HDTV or HD monitor in the past five years or so) both directly (you have to buy a new HD monitor to view encrypted HD content) and indirectly, in adding more complexity to the process and thus many more points of failure to make watching a friday night movie a boondoggle equivalent to installing a new sound card in a Windows PC.
Ah well. All hail our new content overlords.
DMCA overrides the old court cases in this area, but (perhaps surprisingly to some) DMCA does not make it illegal to make personal copies of DVDs for your own use (in other words, it's okay as long as it's a legitimate fair use and not Internet-style fantasy fair use). It does, however, make it illegal for most people to sell and distribute devices or software that can do the job.Super Dave said:
Basically, DMCA breaks DRM into two flavors, access control and copy control. Access control is the type of DRM that makes sure that you have a license to play a work -- software keys and the iTunes password protection are examples of access controls. Copy control is just that, a measure that prevents a medium from being copied -- The SCMS built into DAT and Minidisc players, and the CSS encoded into most commercial DVDs, are copy controls.
DMCA makes it illegal to develop or distribute something that circumvents either kind of DRM, with certain narrow restrictions for researchers, libraries and so on.
DMCA makes it illegal to circumvent an access control, with a very few narrow exceptions.
DMCA does not make it illegal to use a tool that circumvents a copy control, except that all the other restrictions built into older copyright law still apply. As above, (almost) no one is allowed to provide you with those tools.
For there to be penalties, DMCA requires that circumvention devices be created or used "willfully and for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain". That's probably the main reason why ripping tools are still so easy to obtain, the barrier is fairly high before it can really be enforced.
(I know what someone's going to inevitably ask: so why was DVD Jon arrested? He was still living in Norway at the time, and was dragged through court under Norwegian law. US DMCA stuff had nothing to do with him.)
Ja Di ksw said:Darn, another hurdle to jump over if I want to commit a crime
Oh wait, I don't steal my stuff. Nevermind, I don't care.
Eventually, something that has DRM is going to screw with you and then you're going to be pissed. Until your apathy is merely ignoring what could be a very raw deal for customers. Furthermore, conflating copyright infringment with a crime is disingenuous at best.
gnasher729 said:
It will affect fair use, why shouldn't I be able to grab the video signal from equipment I paid for? This system isn't for the advancement of technology, it's to protect copyright by limiting the capabilities of my equipment. This, like DRM, is going to come with a host of unintended consequences for consumers while failing to limit piracy. It's unfair, it's anti-consumer and I wish people would understand that.